AWKWARD ZOMBIE

TurboPunz wrote:It's why if I ever end up with a smartphone I'm going for one with a sliding keyboard

Yay I'm not alone. Touchscreens and phones are a huge step backwards in terms or usability as far as I'm concerned.

D-vid wrote:I feel similarly about LotR. Only that I couldn't get into it at all, not even the movies.
It's just... the elves and dwarves and orcs and ye olde timey stuff just doesn't do it for me with LotR. Even though I like stuff like that in other formats like Elder Scrolls games.

LoTR is pretty dry and boring to read if you don't know the mythopoeia because it's filled with cryptic in-universe references you won't get. Also songs about every tree the fellowship sees.

Eh, I thought I would miss having a physical keyboard on my phone but I adapted to a touchscreen pretty quickly. Swype is a super cool thing as long as you pay attention to whatever autocorrect decides to do. It's especially fast when you can auto-fill longer words or just swipe your finger "close enough" to the right keys that it figures out what you meant.

I do agree that the touchscreen craze has gone a little too far, though. Touchscreen laptops? Really? ...You mean tablets with attached keyboards? And you want me to pay tons more for a feature I will never *need* to use?

Touchscreens are useful but it's not the wave of the future. Buttons work just as well for non-mobile things.

Edit: Re: LotR: I recently started re-reading the LotR series, it makes a lot more sense than it did when I was in middle school, because you realize that it's not in the straightforward fantasy style of fiction you see today (including stuff like Elder Scrolls, even though their lore is more fleshed out than most fantasy worlds). It's more like... halfway between epic poetry and medieval fantasy. It really started the whole fantasy mythos as we know it, before LotR there really weren't any other well-known stories of elves and dwarves and monsters like that. So it's a lot more cryptic, partially because so much of it refers to lore that only Tolkien knew about (and later put in stuff like the Silmarillion), but also because that world was so different from other fiction of the time; it creates that feel that there are ancient secrets and powers at work that the mortal characters (or the readers) never really understand.

I don't mind touchscreens at all. I've gotten to the point where I can type reliably without even looking at the phone. Controls in games have improved by miles too; I think the iOS port of Sonic 1 had the best controls of any other consoles I've played on. It just felt immediate and responsive. I can see where issues would very readily crop up for games with more complex controls, but for simpler stuff it works great. I'd say you could easily port any Game Boy series game to touchscreens and have it work flawlessly by now.

Lacking the tactile feedback from a physical button reduces your ability to quickly and accurately react in my experience. Sure, it's ok for simple games, but why would you ever pick a worse option that costs more?

It's free if you've already got the phone to use as a phone, though.

Tactile feedback was never an issue for me much, since if the game's set up right you won't have to feel your way around the screen. Most of the time when I'm using a console, I don't feel the buttons until I'm already pressing all the way down anyway, so I didn't miss the buttons when I moved to the screen. Of course, I'm mostly talking about really simple games with huge buttons, but even when I was playing the pared down port of SFIV with its five(? maybe just four, I forget) buttons I didn't miss any significant amount.
Having the buttons right there in your field of view made it really easy to acclimate, too.

I truly believe Super Mario World is better than Mario Bros 3.

Better graphics (Even with the GBA remakes), better music, smoother controls, better powerups and it has mother fucking Yoshi in it. But everyone says SMB3 is the superior one...

Syobon wrote:Lacking the tactile feedback from a physical button reduces your ability to quickly and accurately react in my experience. Sure, it's ok for simple games, but why would you ever pick a worse option that costs more?

I don't know about games, but I can type just as quickly on a digital keyboard as I can a physical keyboard.

SaintCrazy wrote: Edit: Re: LotR: I recently started re-reading the LotR series, it makes a lot more sense than it did when I was in middle school, because you realize that it's not in the straightforward fantasy style of fiction you see today (including stuff like Elder Scrolls, even though their lore is more fleshed out than most fantasy worlds). It's more like... halfway between epic poetry and medieval fantasy. It really started the whole fantasy mythos as we know it, before LotR there really weren't any other well-known stories of elves and dwarves and monsters like that. So it's a lot more cryptic, partially because so much of it refers to lore that only Tolkien knew about (and later put in stuff like the Silmarillion), but also because that world was so different from other fiction of the time; it creates that feel that there are ancient secrets and powers at work that the mortal characters (or the readers) never really understand.

It's exactly because of this that Tolkien said the Lord of the Rings should include the Silmarillion. He felt that you could never grasp everything tLotR was about without knowing what happened before. He explained all this in the letter that was included in the Silmarillion.
Everything became much more clear to me when I learned that tLotR is actually the last bit, bodaciously the ending, of the entire story that was his life's work.

D-vid wrote:

Dire wrote:

Crisp wrote: I actually think the game of thrones TV series is more engaging than the books. They're just too..
Wordy. Dont get me wrong, I love books. I love reading but I like more.. action that description.

...
And frozen was a good movie, but i dont think it was worth all the hype.

I haven't seen the TV series but I can understand what you mean. I read the first book and found it slow but mostly there were too many characters with similar names and it was more like a soap opera with everything going on, so I can see it working better on TV.

I have a similar and more detailed opinion of Frozen but I already aired my griefs in the Movie thread.

I feel similarly about LotR. Only that I couldn't get into it at all, not even the movies.
It's just... the elves and dwarves and orcs and ye olde timey stuff just doesn't do it for me with LotR. Even though I like stuff like that in other formats like Elder Scrolls games.

understandable. It's just too detailed and they tend to hop around a lot n Lord of the Rings.
Merry and Pippin also bugged me kinda.

I find Batman incredibly boring. I seriously don't understand why everyone loves him so much.

Batman is okay when he's not written by people who have a huge fanboy boner for him that make him "I'm the smartest, alpha as fuck, every other superhero sucks. I'm Batman."

personally, if i were to write batman, id make him a bit more. mature and grounded. and make robin more of a cocky bastard. I mean sure hes smart, but yknow. "ey I make the thinsg and keep Gotham safe. Im batman but im also just a normal dude too"

I'll admit that part of the reason I like Batman as much as I do is because of the villains.

Harley Quinn and the Joker are great, but Batman himself is engh.

Harley Quinn is meh, the Joker is overrated. Mr Freeze is great, Scarecrow has potential, Riddler is cool. Everyone else is ok, some good some worse. It all depends on the writing of course.